FL - Sarah Boone, 42, charged with murdering boyfriend Jorge Torres, 42, by leaving him locked in suitcase, Winter Park, Feb 2020

[Cool Cats]

The judge not only cited case law but he mentioned SB’s actions. SB has run through EIGHT attorneys. Does anyone think she will accept the first standby counsel appointed? It will be more of the same. She was warned. I agree with @Weki that there will be a plea deal.

Maybe the judge will assign some court professional to work with her on a plea agreement if she wants one. These are "deadly" serious, like an important contract that a person should not be signing without having an attorney read it.

@gitana1

Any thoughts on these 4 things?

1.) Sarah getting appointed standby counsel?

2.) Sarah getting counsel to write up a plea deal if this is what she wants?

3.) In your professional opinion how do you think Sarah's trial will go with or without her having standby counsel?

4.) Do you think the judge is correct in assuming that Sarah is deliberately resisting counsel to delay her jury trial? He said actions speak louder than words and that her words tell the story she wants counsel for a trial but her actions show she does not want a trial....or wants it put off as long as possible.

Sorry to bother you with all these questions but I very much appreciate having a verified attorney on this thread. I hope you comment on this thread during Sarah's actual trial.

I am guessing that alot of posters are as perplexed as I am about this whole debacle.

2 Cents.....Thank You very much @gitana1

 

[Observe_dont_Absorb]

Huh?

Regardless of how she has ended up representing herself, in my opinion in the name of justice, she should have a right to have appointed standby counsel just like other Pro se defendant's do.

At least someone to whisper to her when she can speak and not speak, call witnessess, object, approach bench, and help her follow simple normal procedural guidelines.

How else will she be able to conduct her own trial Pro se?

She has all ready told the judge she is "thoroughly confused" as to why everyone knew about her last 2 hearings except her. She even complained that the media knew about her hearing when she did not, given the fact the media was righ there recording her hearing. She asked "Shouldn't she be included if she is Pro se?"

I have never heard of a Pro se defendant not wanting to be a Pro se defendant.

**** SCRATCHING HEAD ****

2 Cent Confusion

I can understand what you mean but SB is an involuntary / unwilling pro se defendant because she has 'forfeited her right' to legal representation. As explained very clearly by the judge. She has forfeited her right by refusing to work reasonably with numerous lawyers, some of whom she's made very serious false allegations about. She's not workable with.

She was also IMO attempting to play the system, either consciously or unconsciously, by repeatedly and sustainedly failing to work with her appointed lawyer. She was gaming the system to fail so that she would never get a hearing - hence she's now been in jail for well over 4 years and has cost the state a fortune. In order to prevent this from keep happening, it was vital the judge intervened. So that there is justice for Jorge, that SB is not a woman kept in remain with no conviction, and that the law is served for everyone in general.

I don't believe SB was willing or able to work with anyone. I believe she's in denial and cognitive dissonance.

She can pay for private legal advice and hire a lawyer with her own money. Or she must now go it alone. There is no stand by lawyer as that is what people who elect to go pro se then change their minds are legally entitled to.

 

[Cool Cats]

I can understand what you mean but SB is an involuntary / unwilling pro se defendant because she has 'forfeited her right' to legal representation. As explained very clearly by the judge. She has forfeited her right by refusing to work reasonably with numerous lawyers, some of whom she's made very serious false allegations about. She's not workable with.

She was also IMO attempting to play the system, either consciously or unconsciously, by repeatedly and sustainedly failing to work with her appointed lawyer. She was gaming the system to fail so that she would never get a hearing - hence she's now been in jail for well over 4 years and has cost the state a fortune. In order to prevent this from keep happening, it was vital the judge intervened. So that there is justice for Jorge, that SB is not a woman kept in remain with no conviction, and that the law is served for everyone in general.

I don't believe SB was willing or able to work with anyone. I believe she's in denial and cognitive dissonance.

She can pay for private legal advice and hire a lawyer with her own money. Or she must now go it alone. There is no stand by lawyer as that is what people who elect to go pro se then change their minds are legally entitled to.

Am I wrong?

I thought there are 2 different kinds of attorneys. BOTH Regular defense attorneys but one advises in court as a side counsel to a Pro se defendant. This defendant wants to represent themselves, wants to be a Pro se lawyer for themself but also needs guidence when navigating complicated trial protocol.

But Sarah does not want to represent herself and does not want to be a Pro se lawyer for herself but she is now in this position. As a Pro se lawyer why can't she have what other Pro se lawyers have? A side defense counsel who during trial can advise her of how to navigate the complicated legal system. Her life is on the line with 2nd degree murder charges and she needs advice during her trial. Period.

2 Cents

 

[Weki]

As explained at the hearing by the JCC rep who was on Zoom, stand by counsel is not co-counsel or an assistant. They stand by during a pro se defendant’s attempt to defend themselves then when the defendant changes his or her mind they take over. What SB wants is an assistant to do her bidding. Based on her previous behavior she is not willing to let anyone tell her what needs to be done. She wants a servant. Because she knows all and she knows best with her zero legal experience! These lawyers have other clients, they don’t want to give up their lives and work for 3 weeks to do SB’s bidding nor should they be ordered to do so by the court. Not to mention be insulted and berated by SB while doing it! There’s no due process right to have a slave!

In any case stand by counsel is for pro se defendants. SB is not pro se, she has forfeited her right to a public defender. She’s in a diff posture. If the judge says yes to stand by counsel he might as well just appoint the 10th public defender to be her lawyer because SB doesn’t want to be pro se. He has ruled that she has forfeited/waived her right to a public defender. Appointing stand by counsel would mean a reversal of his order.

JMO

 

[Lilibet]

As a Pro se lawyer why can't she have what other Pro se lawyers have? A side defense counsel who during trial can advise her of how to navigate the complicated legal system. Her life is on the line with 2nd degree murder charges and she needs advice during her trial. Period.

I think we’re in uncharted territory here…at least because it’s not a normal, voluntarily pro se situation. As the judge pointed out “Actions speak louder than words.” Her refusal to cooperate with eight attorneys makes it clear that she wants to represent herself, even if she says she doesn’t want to. She can’t be allowed to continue this parade of attorneys. But because she is not voluntarily representing herself, she is not entitled to the help a voluntary pro se defendant would receive. She has excavated a deep hole for herself and was warned that this would happen if she kept rejecting attorneys by refusing to cooperate. But she never seems to think that consequences will actually happen to her.

I agree with you that the legal system is very complicated and she is facing a second degree murder charge, so yes, she needs advice badly during the trial. She knows this because the judge has explained it to her. And yet, she has voluntarily refused help from eight attorneys. How many side defense counsels to help her navigate the system during the trial would she reject? Her previous behavior would continue if they give her advice she doesn’t want or like…or if they aren’t “nice” to her. SB thinks she can rewrite the rules regarding representation, but I don’t see how the judge can allow this to continue, no matter how much she needs legal help or how “unfair” SB claims the judge is.

JMO

 

[arielilane]

I have some questions if anyone knows the answers. Was she warned that if she kept causing attorneys to move to withdraw, she could waive her right to counsel?

And has she had a competency exam?

Excellent point about a competency exam @gitana1.

Did the previous eight attorneys ever get an opportunity to request a competency exam? No one knows?

Anyway, your expertise is valued here and hope you can provide input regarding @Cool Cats questions.
You are greatly appreciated. TIA

 

[arielilane]

During Monday’s hearing SB expressed her dismay not to forfeit her right, saying it was your judgment. I dont want to be pro se. Judge Kraynick reiterated that he read everything related to SB’s case and that his order would stand, simply put- it's denied.

'I don't want to be pro se': Sarah Boone argues with judge

Accused killer Sarah Boone argued with a judge over access to evidence and whether she had a right to standby counsel at a hearing on Monday.

www.courttv.com

 

[I am not Sherlock H.]

There are no competency issues. Being a pain in the behind is not a competency issue. It’s so obvious this individual is having a hard time coping with her lack of control. And that’s the nicest way of putting it. Darryl Brooks did the same thing and he was waaaay worse. No competency issues with him either. It’s called subverting justice. JMO

Yes Weki, hard not to agree entirely. And I just want to ensure whatever results in the courtroom with this case is ‘one and done’. Would be unfortunate to allow this one any breathing room. Any at all.

And one of our fellow posters way way up thread asked how did SB first husband ever meet her? I think another question is…. how did he manage to escape her?

So sad too….. underneath all of this is the absolutely unnecessary death of JT, and the effect of that on his children and family. MOO

 

[Seattle1]

In watching SB's last hearing -- I think it's beyond her not being cooperative with her previous counsel. Not only is she abusive but she's downright accused some of lying in affidavits and/or committing perjury in her case. It makes sense some withdrew citing ethical concerns. Attorneys have a right to protect themselves from the likes of SB! JMO

 

[tlcya]

She's very good at digging herself into a hole even further.

uh huh, guessing she's had a lifetime of practice

 

[sasha17]

In watching SB's last hearing -- I think it's beyond her not being cooperative with her previous counsel. Not only is she abusive but she's downright accused some of lying in affidavits and/or committing perjury in her case. It makes sense some withdrew citing ethical concerns. Attorneys have a right to protect themselves from the likes of SB! JMO

She also lies out loud in the last hearing! She previously had told judge that she wants a laptop instead of printed materials for review of the discovery but then in the hearing, she claimed she never said that and it's not true. Does she not realize the court records everything?! She can't even keep her own story straight about her requests to receive the discovery materials. If she makes it to trial, it'll be a disaster.

 

[Weki]

What I hate most about her is her pretense at being this professional, deferential woman when she’s acting like a PITA! I detest that level of passive aggression. She keeps saying I don’t understand and I’m confused etc and asks for things to be repeated, IMO, just to be controlling. [For example, she told the judge she has no storage space in her cell or whatever so she knows he can’t just give her 2 boxes of files to keep with her for review. The jail won’t allow that anyway. Yet she keeps raising this even though all the files have been copied on the usb drive, which she was provided.] Everyone is speaking in plain English. And I agree she lies as well. She is testing the judge’s patience! They all know what’s coming if this goes to trial! That’s why the judge added an extra week. She will do this constantly and delay delay delay and jury will be in and out every 30 mins as she pretends to be “confused.”

Let’s remember that she wanted her lawyers to do unethical things. She wanted to focus on things that are not legally sufficient. This is her only way to have some control on her situation and she’s not gonna give it up.

There’s no getting out of this no matter what she does. She will pay the piper in the end. Just like Darryl Brooks. JMO

 

[texaslb218]

What I hate most about her is her pretense at being this professional, deferential woman when she’s acting like a PITA! I detest that level of passive aggression. She keeps saying I don’t understand and I’m confused etc and asks for things to be repeated, IMO, just to be controlling. [For example, she told the judge she has no storage space in her cell or whatever so she knows he can’t just give her 2 boxes of files to keep with her for review. The jail won’t allow that anyway. Yet she keeps raising this even though all the files have been copied on the usb drive, which she was provided.] Everyone is speaking in plain English. And I agree she lies as well. She is testing the judge’s patience! They all know what’s coming if this goes to trial! That’s why the judge added an extra week. She will do this constantly and delay delay delay and jury will be in and out every 30 mins as she pretends to be “confused.”

Let’s remember that she wanted her lawyers to do unethical things. She wanted to focus on things that are not legally sufficient. This is her only way to have some control on her situation and she’s not gonna give it up.

There’s no getting out of this no matter what she does. She will pay the piper in the end. Just like Darryl Brooks. JMO

Yes....another Darryl Brooks. Absolutely agree with you that she doesn't want a trial, but enjoys the process.

 

[Cool Cats]

I think we’re in uncharted territory here…at least because it’s not a normal, voluntarily pro se situation. As the judge pointed out “Actions speak louder than words.” Her refusal to cooperate with eight attorneys makes it clear that she wants to represent herself, even if she says she doesn’t want to. She can’t be allowed to continue this parade of attorneys. But because she is not voluntarily representing herself, she is not entitled to the help a voluntary pro se defendant would receive. She has excavated a deep hole for herself and was warned that this would happen if she kept rejecting attorneys by refusing to cooperate. But she never seems to think that consequences will actually happen to her.

I agree with you that the legal system is very complicated and she is facing a second degree murder charge, so yes, she needs advice badly during the trial. She knows this because the judge has explained it to her. And yet, she has voluntarily refused help from eight attorneys. How many side defense counsels to help her navigate the system during the trial would she reject? Her previous behavior would continue if they give her advice she doesn’t want or like…or if they aren’t “nice” to her. SB thinks she can rewrite the rules regarding representation, but I don’t see how the judge can allow this to continue, no matter how much ushe needs legal help or how “unfair” SB claims the judge is.

JMOuuslysly the

Boone should be given a basic manual of trial procedures, it seems to me.

The defense (her) and prosecution attorneys cannot just ask anything of a witness, the door must be opened according to court protocol. Then there is the opening and closing statements to instruct her on.

She will need to get a grip on the objections she can make to the prosecutor's questions.

The judge can tell her if she needs to come up for a side bar and sometimes the judge will have the jury leave the room for this and for other various important reasons.

In the Alec Baldwin trial the judge sent the jury out so she could have a Brady doctrine hearing about the exculpatory evidence that was left out....causing the case to be dismissed with prejudice.

Is Boone's interrogation on police body camera admissible along with some or all of her interrogation at the police station?

What about subpoenas? Is she filing her own? I read she may use a domestic violence defense.
A court investigator has some depositions he needs to give to her at the jail.

This case, serious 2nd degree murder screams out for legal counsel.

And how does she take the stand and question herself? She likely will have very important points she will want to make clear to the jury, all under oath, but then the prosecution can cross examine her while she is still on the stand under oath.

This trial will have grieving family in the gallery who sre counting on justice for their beloved son, brother, grandson, cousin, friend, nephew and father to his girls.....JorgeTorres. I am guessing on the exact family dynamics but the family dynamics are very real.

Sarah will finally not be able to make it all about her vain fake hysterics, playing victim, constant bragging that she is excelling in life and motherhood, and that leaving Jorge Torres to smother to death was always unintentional.

So I gotta count on the judge, that he will keep Sarah under firm control. That the judge will keep her in her place as the defendant of a heinous crime and not the fake innocent she is espousing to be.

2 Cent exhaustion.

 

[AppleTreeGreen]

SB treated her attorneys like they were Alexa and the Court like it is a Starbucks. She also seems to think she is smarter than everyone else based on her answers to LE and way she speaks, borderline condescendingly, to the judge and her attorneys. MOO

Her demanding nature seems to have remained consistent since her original police interrogations. The first officer had barely finished introducing herself before SB demanded to have some water and a cigarette 3 times. Never mind her ex-husband said that while on the phone with him she already stepped outside for a drink and a cigarette and the officer promising to get her water, SB clearly thought her thirst was more deserving of attention than both recently her deceased boyfriend and the investigation the officer needed to begin.

She repeated the phrase “I need” 3 times in the first 2 minutes and even after she gets water she disrupts the officer’s focus to again stress her need again for a cigarette. What about her boyfriend’s need for air the night before, his family’s or seemingly your expected need for answers or the first responders’ need to establish a crime scene and contact the necessary crime units?

IMO She expressed more genuine concern and love for her dogs when she thought they were running around loose in the backyard than she did for Jorge after LE arrived

She inquires more about water, cigarettes and when and how Jorge’s family would be informed about his death/murder than how her son was getting home even though it was her day with him. She also inquires more about these things than what exactly happened to Jorge

SB told detectives everything between her and Jorge was fine in the hours leading up to his death and it was a great day. However, in that terrible video of Jorge in the suitcase she laughs when he says he can’t breathe and says that how she feels when he chokes her. Considering you can hear the mockery and disdain in her voice the day couldn’t have been that great if the couple’s night went from a Kindergarten play date of painting, puzzles and hide-and seek to one person dying as they struggle for air while the other, driven by the desire to retaliate, watches and remunerates loud on past hurts.

 

[Megnut]

Unless SB says it herself before it can be stricken, the jury won't know why she's defending herself and will try to make sense of whatever she cobbles together. IMO the judge believes her to be competent enough, intelligent enough, self-interested enough and capable enough for her to get a fair trial. Plus he knows himself. He handled her amazingly well. Refused to engage. Period.

I'm sure her previous counselors all told her a plea was in her best interest. Accept reckless homicide, or diminished capacity or somesuch because of her alcohol level, then plead for mercy at sentencing. But SB can't be reasoned with.

Is there a precedence anywhere for a this cluster: a defendant who has forfeited her right to court appointed counsel then being bodily removed from court for essentially not behaving, and then a judge continuing the trial with the defendant in absentia, whereby he continues to rule making sure the State's case is fair? Carefully not acting as her lawyer but keeping the wheels of the trial still turning?

How, how, how can this proceed smoothly with her playing her own attorney?

She is a clown car. And all the clowns.

JMO

 

[AppleTreeGreen]

So far I noticed that in her qualifications sections she doesn’t require her attorney to have a law degree or any type of legal certification or license, like in paralegal studies for example, nor any experience in Florida criminal law or justice. Along that line I guess she doesn’t care if they passed the Florida State Bar as of yet.

Half of this reads like she is looking for a friend who will also play cheerleader when SB’s ego feel like needs one whereas the other half seems more like an assistant who will do SB’s paperwork and consult her when necessary as long as they both, not just the actual paid or experienced professional, get to play lawyer when the time for trial comes.

Interesting she is asking her attorney to overcome all circumstances when she can’t handle not having hard copies of her discovery, her requests for her root beer and cigarettes being rejected because they were part of the crime scene and her attorneys not answering her 5-10 calls per day because they have lives, other clients and she is not Timmy Turner any more than they are her Fairy Oddparents that show up at her beck and call.

Also the “Show the World Who You Are” part reads that SB wants a lawyer more interested in fame by being on TV than actual justice and securing a fair trial for the victim and defendant.

And “epic”: what is epic about it? Going to court is not like traveling to 6-season hotel in Thailand. It is not the stage for a movie or play. I wonder if SB knows that this is not a stepping stone to the red carpet but the pursuit of a trial based on the heinous murder of Jorge 4 years ago? I don’t think Jorge’s parents found anything epic about burying their son and the pain and grief they faced afterwards.

I hope SB remembers that she doesn’t control the spotlight on national TV and that Jorge’s family and the hurt they are going through deserve attention and care too. As do her ex-husband and son.

 

[arielilane]

Unless SB says it herself before it can be stricken, the jury won't know why she's defending herself and will try to make sense of whatever she cobbles together. IMO the judge believes her to be competent enough, intelligent enough, self-interested enough and capable enough for her to get a fair trial. Plus he knows himself. He handled her amazingly well. Refused to engage. Period.

I'm sure her previous counselors all told her a plea was in her best interest. Accept reckless homicide, or diminished capacity or somesuch because of her alcohol level, then plead for mercy at sentencing. But SB can't be reasoned with.

Is there a precedence anywhere for a this cluster: a defendant who has forfeited her right to court appointed counsel then being bodily removed from court for essentially not behaving, and then a judge continuing the trial with the defendant in absentia, whereby he continues to rule making sure the State's case is fair? Carefully not acting as her lawyer but keeping the wheels of the trial still turning?

How, how, how can this proceed smoothly with her playing her own attorney?

She is a clown car. And all the clowns.

JMO

Agreed! It's best (imo) not to engage a person who continues to act out because that is exactly what they're seeking. It is her stage and she is the main character and no one else matters, in her mind.

As long as her rights are protected and given a fair trial, there is no reason to allow the entertainment. Which is really annoying. This is serious and wonder if SB thinks she is in charge?

Time is valuable and so are people in professional roles. SB knows what she did and has all the time in the world to play games. Game over...

All just a matter of opinion, at this time.

 

[Seattle1]

SB treated her attorneys like they were Alexa and the Court like it is a Starbucks. She also seems to think she is smarter than everyone else based on her answers to LE and way she speaks, borderline condescendingly, to the judge and her attorneys. MOO

Her demanding nature seems to have remained consistent since her original police interrogations. The first officer had barely finished introducing herself before SB demanded to have some water and a cigarette 3 times. Never mind her ex-husband said that while on the phone with him she already stepped outside for a drink and a cigarette and the officer promising to get her water, SB clearly thought her thirst was more deserving of attention than both recently her deceased boyfriend and the investigation the officer needed to begin.

She repeated the phrase “I need” 3 times in the first 2 minutes and even after she gets water she disrupts the officer’s focus to again stress her need again for a cigarette. What about her boyfriend’s need for air the night before, his family’s or seemingly your expected need for answers or the first responders’ need to establish a crime scene and contact the necessary crime units?

IMO She expressed more genuine concern and love for her dogs when she thought they were running around loose in the backyard than she did for Jorge after LE arrived

She inquires more about water, cigarettes and when and how Jorge’s family would be informed about his death/murder than how her son was getting home even though it was her day with him. She also inquires more about these things than what exactly happened to Jorge

SB told detectives everything between her and Jorge was fine in the hours leading up to his death and it was a great day. However, in that terrible video of Jorge in the suitcase she laughs when he says he can’t breathe and says that how she feels when he chokes her. Considering you can hear the mockery and disdain in her voice the day couldn’t have been that great if the couple’s night went from a Kindergarten play date of painting, puzzles and hide-and seek to one person dying as they struggle for air while the other, driven by the desire to retaliate, watches and remunerates loud on past hurts.

Mercy -- the suitcase video that SB recorded is difficult to watch but one thing we know for certain is the dying victim wasn't threatening, combative, or using abusive language as he repeatedly told SB he couldn't breathe and wasn't joking.

In other words, this is no 'self-defense,' or 'I was in fear for my life' defense! This is a case of SB being SB. MOO

 

[Seattle1]

So far I noticed that in her qualifications sections she doesn’t require her attorney to have a law degree or any type of legal certification or license, like in paralegal studies for example, nor any experience in Florida criminal law or justice. Along that line I guess she doesn’t care if they passed the Florida State Bar as of yet.

But don't you think (by definition) that's covered in the large font heading of her announcement "Inmate seeks Attorney?"